You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

...except depth of field and noise. Noise is dictated by total light, not density of light.

Beyond that, it isn't really a handicap. The vast majority of shooting conditions there's sufficient light to use a smaller aperture. What's a handicap is being force to stop down a μ43 lens when f/1.4 is the DOF you want but you can't use it because the mid-day sun is too bright...conditions where f/2.8 on FF would have been perfectly fine. Now...if μ43 actually started providing good low ISO, that'd be solved, but we're stuck with ISO200 and fake ISO100.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

Your gallery does not confirm that you're stuck with ISO200. I saw lots of fine shots

Thanks!

What I meant was that I wish we had more low ISO options. I am generally extremely happy with my E-M5. Easily my favorite of all the cameras I've ever shot with.